The Third Empire - Page 4

Bags · 2011-02-17, 12:02 PM

Originally Posted by LordReaver

None of this changes the fact that the number 3 is terrible.
.

But three's a prime number! That's got to count for something, right?

LordReaver · 2011-02-18, 12:59 AM

You also need to remember how the side that gets hit by the third empire just ignores it, until they start hitting vital bases, and then they just go and duck down in an interlink or other hard to penetrate base. Only when a good leader steps up to the plate will an empire maintain the offensive while being double teamed.

Two teams does not create stalemates. You can just look at any other game or sport or whatever and see that it works. When stalemates do occur, they'd might last longer, but they wouldn't happen nearly as often.

Bags · 2011-02-18, 01:00 AM

They're not going to remove an entire empire; end of discussion.

Grimster · 2011-02-18, 04:43 AM

Originally Posted by Bags

They're not going to remove an entire empire; end of discussion.

Agree

Timantium · 2011-02-18, 08:13 AM

Thanks to the OP for his/her completely unbiased approach to which empire to lose. If you are that butt-hurt because some "barneys" killed your "blueberry" or "cherry" self, then buy some tissues.

On a serious note, your argument makes no sense. Two empires can impose a stalemate just as easily as three. The addition of a third empire actually makes it easier to break one.

Two empires (of equal pop) = easy stalemate. If one empire has overwhelming numbers, then they can open multiple fronts and conquer.

The only way three empires allows for a stalemate is if one empire has enough population to completely defend on two fronts. The third empire opens up new conflict to keep the battle dynamic. Case in point: last night, VS lost much of cyssor to the TR because VS were fighting NC and TR on ish. VS did not have enough pop to adequaltely respond to the TR numbers on cyssor so they lost 5 bases while they fought NC on ish.

Stalemates are epic in planetside, the game is not supposed to end (so it's all kind of a huge stalemate).

It would be sooooo boring with only two empires. It would kill things like tower camps, gen holds and all the smaller scale skirmishes that are really fun.

Manitou · 2011-02-18, 09:01 AM

I have to agree that three empires seems to be the "sweet spot" for maintaining a well rounded conflict. There is always the dynamic of the third empire which you have to consider when planning to invade a continent/planet.

I see it as the three-legged stool concept. You have the bare minimum to keep the stool usable - remove one more though and it is useless.

Firefly · 2011-02-18, 09:05 AM

Everyone complains about getting double-teamed, but the reality is that in a three-way Planetside fight, SOMEONE is always going to end up the third wheel. So it's going to seem like you're getting double-teamed even if it's not intentional and by-agreement. Just like in porn - someone's always getting double-teamed in a three-way, unless they daisy-chain that shit.

Hamma · 2011-02-18, 11:54 AM

Yea I think two empires would create a shitload more stalemates. That's just my opinion though.

I SandRock · 2011-02-18, 12:54 PM

Originally Posted by Hamma

That's just my opinion though.

No it's not. Stop trying to claim things as your own!

basti · 2011-02-18, 07:43 PM

Originally Posted by Hamma

Yea I think two empires would create a shitload more stalemates. That's just my opinion though.

I could back your opinion up if i want to, with several pages of text why 3 is the magic number that works, and why 2 is a bad bad bad idea, as well as 4 or even more.

Fact is, hamma, you need to start removing the crap threads with opinions that are just there to troll people. Like this thread, or the headshots one. We all know that this stuff is a bad idea, there is no point to discuss this over several pages, just because the OP doesnt want to stop trolling...

Tikuto · 2011-02-19, 06:08 AM

Hah! May be true but Hamma is admin and you're not. Don't you be tellin' big cheese what's mouldy and what's not...

Besides, the BFRs Revisited thread interests me, still.

basti · 2011-02-19, 06:27 AM

Originally Posted by Tikuto

Hah! May be true but Hamma is admin and you're not. Don't you be tellin' big cheese what's mouldy and what's not...

Besides, the BFRs Revisited thread interests me, still.

The BRF thread is interresting, but this here is just throwing arguments at each other, while the side that clearly is wrong just doesnt stop. That is a troll, not a discussion. Otherwise you end up like Forumside, and im pretty sure nobody wants that.

I SandRock · 2011-02-19, 06:40 AM

Originally Posted by basti

while the side that clearly is wrong just doesnt stop

I'm sorry but who are you to say who is wrong and who is clearly right? This isn't such a clear-cut case. I'm AGAINST headshots but I don't think those for them are undeniably clearly wrong. They have their points, I just personally don't like headshots. PERSONALLY.

It seems like you just call everyone a troll that disagrees with you :P

basti · 2011-02-19, 06:46 AM

Originally Posted by I SandRock

I'm sorry but who are you to say who is wrong and who is clearly right? This isn't such a clear-cut case. I'm AGAINST headshots but I don't think those for them are undeniably clearly wrong. They have their points, I just personally don't like headshots. PERSONALLY.

It seems like you just call everyone a troll that disagrees with you :P

It seems like i really have to start collection all those links and walls of text to make you understand. I would actually LOVE to have headshots, but i know how the entire idea would end: Im running throuu a stairwell headshotting people left and right, and those who get shot just get frustrated. But wrong thread. Im just going to post walls of text now, and god show mercy if you dont read them fully and comment to every single statment made. :>

I SandRock · 2011-02-19, 07:02 AM

Originally Posted by basti

It seems like i really have to start collection all those links and walls of text to make you understand. I would actually LOVE to have headshots, but i know how the entire idea would end: Im running throuu a stairwell headshotting people left and right, and those who get shot just get frustrated. But wrong thread. Im just going to post walls of text now, and god show mercy if you dont read them fully and comment to every single statment made. :>

"It doesn't matter what YOU think. - The Rock "

It's alright if your opinion is that it's stupid and you'd just end up owning everyone with your leet skills which you don't want. But opinions are just that. There is no scientific fact or natural law against headshots in PS2.

But you're right nonetheless. It shouldn't be in